When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[ainsworth74]

Different circumstances, then we had a paralysed parliament we don't have that now.

I'll grant you in 2019 but I'm not sure that's true of 2017. In any event it would seem we're not going to agree on this point. I personally feel that history has shown that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is a useless piece of legislation and if Boris wants an election he can get one even before it's repealed but happy to agree to disagree.

 

[birchesgreen]

I just don't think Labour will be so quick to make the same mistake twice is all, the act will probably be repealed within a year anyway

 

[daodao]

An enemy of the state? Seriously?

Anyone whose aim is the establishment of Scotland as fully independent country clearly wishes to destroy the UK as a united sovereign state by removing 1 of its 2 integral parts, and is thus an enemy of this state. I accept that the SNP is not supporting violence, in the way that its analogous party in Ireland (Sinn Fein) has done at some periods, but it is nonetheless opposed to the continuing existence of the UK. Please note that I am not opposing the aims of the SNP (or for that matter Sinn Fein), but merely pointing out that its views mean that it cannot be part of or effectively prop up a UK government. It is an electoral liability for any UK political party to be tainted by collaboration with secessionists, and this will be exploited by that party's opponents. Bojo wouldn't hesitate to use this as ammunition against the Labour Party.

 

[Busaholic]

I'll grant you in 2019 but I'm not sure that's true of 2017. In any event it would seem we're not going to agree on this point. I personally feel that history has shown that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is a useless piece of legislation and if Boris wants an election he can get one even before it's repealed but happy to agree to disagree.

You've come to the same conclusion as I did in my early days on this forum when I fulminated against the introduction of this ridiculous act, but I never got any support then (luckily for me, that sort of thing doesn't bother me.) Most people were puzzled as to why I was so vehemently against it: I explained that it wouldn't prevent a weasly and self-interested government from getting its way, far from it. As for 2017, all Theresa May got out of that was having to work with the DUP, and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy!

 

[Scotrail314209]

For gods sake.

Tories' 'authoritarian' crackdown on protests passes final Commons hurdle

MPs backed the Police and Crime Bill which will make it illegal to inflict “serious annoyance” or "noisy" protests without reasonable excuse, punishable by up to 10 years’ jail

www.mirror.co.uk

The Tories are pressing ahead with an "authoritarian" crackdown on protests despite being told it could breach human rights.

Priti Patel's Police and Crime Bill which will make it illegal to inflict “serious annoyance” or "noisy" protests without reasonable excuse, punishable by up to 10 years’ jail.


Lawyers, policing figures and MPs have warned the Home Secretary it risks a disproportionate attack on free speech and the right to free expression.

But despite repeated calls to change the legislation, the Government refused and voted down Labour attempts in the Commons to curb the draconian measures.

MPs voted for the bill to pass its third reading by 365 to 265.

Of course the bill is being spearheaded by none other than Priti Patel. She seems to lack any sense of class, dignity and humanity.

 

[ungreat]

Speed the day when the Tories are ousted.

 

[notlob.divad]

Anyone whose aim is the establishment of Scotland as fully independent country clearly wishes to destroy the UK as a united sovereign state by removing 1 of its 2 integral parts, and is thus an enemy of this state. I accept that the SNP is not supporting violence, in the way that its analogous party in Ireland (Sinn Fein) has done at some periods, but it is nonetheless opposed to the continuing existence of the UK. Please note that I am not opposing the aims of the SNP (or for that matter Sinn Fein), but merely pointing out that its views mean that it cannot be part of or effectively prop up a UK government. It is an electoral liability for any UK political party to be tainted by collaboration with secessionists, and this will be exploited by that party's opponents. Bojo wouldn't hesitate to use this as ammunition against the Labour Party.

You seem to be forgetting the UK has 4 integral parts. In the event of an independent Scotland, the United Kingdom could carry on between the 3 remaining parts.

Personally I would be perfectly happy to see an SNP - Labour - Plaid - SDLP coalition in the UK government as it would go someway further in representing views from across the United Kingdom rather than the England centric parliment we currently have.

 

[Typhoon]

Speed the day when the Tories are ousted.

I'm not certain that follows; on the Home Office website it clearly indicates that its target is the likes of 'Extinction Rebellion' and the toppling of statues, which many 'hard-working' (their term) people wouldn't disagree with, as wouldn't those whose support Ms Patel needs when bidding for the Tory party leadership. It won't be until some group of pensioners are being dragged away because their over 60's club has been boarded up and sold to a developer (and party donor) who is annoyed that the pensioners are protesting outside his head office and had the audacity to shout at him through a megaphone so contacted the police that it will hit home

Of course the bill is being spearheaded by none other than Priti Patel. She seems to lack any sense of class, dignity and humanity.

"Of course the bill is being spearheaded by none other than Priti Patel. She seems to lack any sense of class, dignity and humanity."

I think my amendment is more accurate. This surely is a lawyer's dream. Many of the terms ("unjustifiably noisy", "producing excessive noise or smells", "comfort of the public") are so vague that you could bring out expert witnesses to argue just about anything. That will tie up the courts. We know what happened with the Covid restrictions, how different forces interpreted them differently, its going to be a nightmare for them. Still, I am looking forward to seeing Stanley Johnson being led away in handcuffs for being too noisy at an Extinction Rebellion rally.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

For gods sake.

Tories' 'authoritarian' crackdown on protests passes final Commons hurdle

MPs backed the Police and Crime Bill which will make it illegal to inflict “serious annoyance” or "noisy" protests without reasonable excuse, punishable by up to 10 years’ jail

www.mirror.co.uk

Of course the bill is being spearheaded by none other than Priti Patel. She seems to lack any sense of class, dignity and humanity.

I wouldn't normally really consider the Mirror to be a good source of accurate and unbiased news, and doing a bit of checking suggest that the Mirror (in common with a lot of social media discussion of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill) has rather mis-represented the bill: According to the Government's own explanation of the bill:

In recent years we have seen some protesters use egregious noise not as a method of legitimately expressing themselves, but to antagonise and disrupt others from the enjoyment of their own liberties and rights.

This power can only be used when the police reasonably believe that the noise from the protest may cause serious disruption to the activities of an organisation or cause a significant impact on people in the vicinity of the protest. “Impact” is defined as intimidation, harassment, serious unease, serious alarm, or serious distress with the police then having to consider whether the impact is significant.

I looked at the text of the bill itself and, although I'm not a lawyer so I could well have misunderstood it, it does seem to match that explanation very well. In short, it doesn't automatically outlaw all noisy protests in the way that a lot of people on the left seem to be claiming: Rather, it (roughly speaking) gives the police the power to regulate and outlaw protests in which noise is being used as a form of intimidation.

But hey, lets not let the facts get in the way of a good left wing rant, eh?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Rather, it (roughly speaking) gives the police the power to regulate and outlaw protests in which noise is being used as a form of intimidation.

The point is that giving the police that power basically means they can decide what to regulate and outlaw at their whim.

And you know, whilst they are better than some countries, our police aren't exactly known for being above abusing their powers. There are many examples of this that come to mind: Hillsborough, Orgreave, Jean Charles de Menezes, the recent Sarah Everard vigil and Bristol Kill the bill protests (where they, to quote the Parliamentary inquiry, "breached fundamental rights, committed multiple failings, failed to understand their legal duties in respect of protest, wrongly presumed the protests were illegal, failed to distinguish between those protesting peacefully and those engaging in acts of violence, used excessive force, engaged in revenge policing") etc etc.

 

[daodao]

You seem to be forgetting the UK has 4 integral parts. In the event of an independent Scotland, the United Kingdom could carry on between the 3 remaining parts.

The Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) and the Kingdom of Scotland united to form the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707; it thus has 2 integral parts. This was followed by the union in 1801 with the Kingdom of Ireland, creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Most of Ireland seceded from the UK in 1922, leaving the present formulation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The residual 6 counties are now really an appendage rather than an integral part of the UK, even more so now that there is a customs border in the North Channel. Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom of England in the period 1535-1543, albeit with a significant degree of autonomy granted to it in the last few decades.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The point is that giving the police that power basically means they can decide what to regulate and outlaw at their whim.

I don't think that's entirely correct. The legislation clearly states the things the police need to take account of when making a decision about a protest. Besides, in the real world, the police always have to make a judgement call about whether a particular protest is best stopped or left to go ahead - that's just the nature of reality because it's impossible for a law to capture every nuance and every situation. This bill doesn't change that.

And you know, whilst they are better than some countries, our police aren't exactly known for being above abusing their powers.

Sure, but the answer to that is surely going to be, better regulation of the police and finding ways to prevent them abusing their powers. You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't pass legislation just because the police might sometimes abuse their powers when enforcing it. The logic of that argument leads to, we shouldn't have any laws at all!

There are many examples of this that come to mind: Hillsborough, Orgreave, Jean Charles de Menezes, the recent Sarah Everard vigil and Bristol Kill the bill protests (where they, to quote the Parliamentary inquiry, "breached fundamental rights, committed multiple failings, failed to understand their legal duties in respect of protest, wrongly presumed the protests were illegal, failed to distinguish between those protesting peacefully and those engaging in acts of violence, used excessive force, engaged in revenge policing") etc etc.

While acknowledging that there are times when the police either make mistakes or abuse their powers, some of the examples you quote are over 30 years old, so of rather questionable relevance today. In the case of Orgreave, while it's certainly true that the police behaved appallingly, you conveniently omit to mention that the protesters weren't merely peacefully protesting - they were actively trying to prevent other people who wished to work from doing so - in other words, they were trying to breach other people's fundamental rights. In the case of the Sarah Everard vigil - which was recent - the police were in a difficult situation due to being required to enforce Covid restrictions, and the subsequent report by the Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services found that the police had in fact behaved appropriately in the circumstances.

 

[ainsworth74]

It amuses me that the root of this bill, let be honest, is that a group of MPs got fed up with Steve Bray (the man who went around with a loudhailer shouting "Stoooop Brexit!" for years on end) being able to protest with impunity. Let's be honest that's what's actually driving the noisy protest provision.

But anyway I'm sure restricting the right to protest and handing further powers over to the police and this Government to determine what is or is not a legitimate protest will pan out fine.

 

[tbtc]

I'm sure restricting the right to protest and handing further powers over to the police and this Government to determine what is or is not a legitimate protest will pan out fine.

...and a lot of the people backing Johnson over this will want to keep seeing him and themselves as libertarians/ "classic liberals" - ah, remember those heady days of a couple of years ago when we kept being told how Johnson would govern like he did as London Mayor, full of touch feely "nice" things (skating over his plans to put water cannons on the streets)

There's a Mark Twain quote: "Give a man a reputation as an early riser, and he can sleep 'til noon"

As long as you keep telling people what a libertarian you are (Free speech, don't let the Nanny State boss you around), they'll ignore all of the authoritarian things that you repeatedly do, eh?

Still, if it stops stunts like the Extinction Rebellion numpties from gluing themselves to electric trains (those incredibly efficient DLR ones), then I guess some people will find it acceptable - if the protestors keep coming up with bigger disruption then I guess there'll be a reaction from the Government (albeit not necessarily "equal and opposite")

 

[317 forever]

I think you're right - the SNP have been keeping their voters focussed on the referendum "just around the corner" for some time now - eventually that support is going to dissipate - either to parties who are more focussed on Independence at all costs (Alba, maybe?) or back to parties who are more focussed on quantifiable everyday concerns (rather than constantly edging their way to a referendum that never quite gets there, much as some religious leaders use the promise of Rapture as a way of distracting people from today's problems - people keep getting told to "wheesht till Indy" but there's only so long that you can keep that up before people start asking questions about why their bins aren't being emptied or the pot holes keep increasing



The danger that the Government have is that the people most at risk will be pensioners without the money to invest in the kind of products that you mention - will the triple lock guarantee keep going? Because it'll make them very unpopular amongst a core bit of Tory voting Britain if they water it down/scrap it, yet it'll be very expensive to maintain indefinitely if inflation does rise back to 1980s levels. If the Government are struggling to balance budgets (post Covid/Brexit), it might go down badly to raise taxes on working age people whilst the Triple Lock continues... awkward balance to maintain - expect some kind of inter-generational arguments though!



Yeah, I could see some kind of argument that "we need a mandate to held us Build Back Better", park their tanks on Labour's lawn, make it hard for Starmer to decide to either ask for even more extreme increases in public spending or will he fall into the trap of being too reasonable (e.g. the way that he annoyed a lot of Corbynites by arguing against a rise in corporation tax recently)



Ah, those George Cole "Liquid Gold" adverts were great

You could watch those Liquid Gold ads and Dance Yourself Dizzy.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps the sale of one of the UK's leading microchip developers, Newport Wafer Fab to a foreign competitor, in spite of its importance in defence and communications technology, might help to undo the conservative party.

I've never understood how the supposed party of Queen and Country has been allowed to get away with being a sort of Flash Harry, party of the spivs, allowing the sell off of Britains assets and companies to any Tom, Dick and Harry. Perhaps they might be forced to choose between being a party of Britain, ot being the party of "the market".

 

[daodao]

Perhaps the sale of one of the UK's leading microchip developers, Newport Wafer Fab to a foreign competitor, in spite of its importance in defence and communications technology, might help to undo the conservative party.

Pull the other one. This is detail and won't affect Bojo's [so far successful] enthusiastic posturing. He and the Tories have little to fear from the dour Sir Keir, who has alienated many true Socialists within his own party.

 

[yorksrob]

Pull the other one. This is detail and won't affect Bojo's [so far successful] enthusiastic posturing. He and the Tories have little to fear from the dour Sir Keir, who has alienated many true Socialists within his own party.

I live in hope that one day the populace might wake up and see the asset stripping of the country for what it is. That said, I've been waiting for over twenty years.

 

[Dai Corner]

Pull the other one. This is detail and won't affect Bojo's [so far successful] enthusiastic posturing. He and the Tories have little to fear from the dour Sir Keir, who has alienated many true Socialists within his own party.

Trouble is, there aren't enough 'true socialist' voters to elect a 'true socialist' Government. The last General Election won on a socialist manifesto with a decent majority was in 1966.

 

[yorksrob]

Also in the 1960's, the free marketeers hadn't by then hijacked conservatism.

 

[Dai Corner]

Also in the 1960's, the free marketeers hadn't by then hijacked conservatism.

The electorate seem to like free markets.

 

[birchesgreen]

The electorate seem to like free markets.

Well they like the good bits, they arn't so keen when the free market decides their jobs are no longer required just because the company isn't making quite enough billions in profit.

 

[Dai Corner]

Well they like the good bits, they arn't so keen when the free market decides their jobs are no longer required just because the company isn't making quite enough billions in profit.

I think they trust the Conservatives more on the economy.

 

[yorksrob]

The electorate seem to like free markets.

Until they turn around one day and find that everythings been sold (particularly to countries where the "free market" is very much a one way street).

 

[birchesgreen]

I think they trust the Conservatives more on the economy.

Yes despite all the evidence to the contrary too.

 

[yorksrob]

I think they trust the Conservatives more on the economy.

That doesn't automatically mean that they agree with them.

 

[Dai Corner]

That doesn't automatically mean that they agree with them.

More a case of disagreeing less with them than with the alternatives. I tend to find myself voting against Parties rather than for them.

Yes despite all the evidence to the contrary too.

What evidence?

 

[yorksrob]

More a case of disagreeing less with them than with the alternatives. I tend to find myself voting against Parties rather than for them.


What evidence?

Absolutely.

 

[brad465]

Perhaps the sale of one of the UK's leading microchip developers, Newport Wafer Fab to a foreign competitor, in spite of its importance in defence and communications technology, might help to undo the conservative party.

I've never understood how the supposed party of Queen and Country has been allowed to get away with being a sort of Flash Harry, party of the spivs, allowing the sell off of Britains assets and companies to any Tom, Dick and Harry. Perhaps they might be forced to choose between being a party of Britain, ot being the party of "the market".

I live in hope that one day the populace might wake up and see the asset stripping of the country for what it is. That said, I've been waiting for over twenty years.

Considering you saying that about the microchip factory is the first I've heard about it, I doubt that particular story will have been heard enough to cause outrage. Also a Chinese firm took over British Steel during the 2019 election campaign and didn't really influence the result.

What might do it though on the subject of asset-stripping is all this US equity firm activity taking over our supermarkets. They've already taken over ASDA; Morrisons is imminent, if these supermarkets suddenly see massive sell-offs, poor quality service and maybe even go bust, questions need to be asked about this sort of business practice. Really this kind of activity needs to be made illegal, I reckon if Labour and other opposition parties expose this and propose banning such behaviour they'll hit the Tory support (Labour already seem to be trying to promote "buy British").

 

[Dai Corner]

Considering you saying that about the microchip factory is the first I've heard about it, I doubt that particular story will have been heard enough to cause outrage. Also a Chinese firm took over British Steel during the 2019 election campaign and didn't really influence the result.

The sale of Newport Wafer Fab has been discussed in the House of Commons

Newport Wafer Fab: Ex-Tory leader says ministers in 'unholy mess' over chip plant sale

Sir Iain Duncan Smith says ministers should have blocked Nexperia's takeover of Newport Wafer Fab.

www.bbc.co.uk

What might do it though on the subject of asset-stripping is all this US equity firm activity taking over our supermarkets. They've already taken over ASDA; Morrisons is imminent, if these supermarkets suddenly see massive sell-offs, poor quality service and maybe even go bust, questions need to be asked about this sort of business practice. Really this kind of activity needs to be made illegal, I reckon if Labour and other opposition parties expose this and propose banning such behaviour they'll hit the Tory support (Labour already seem to be trying to promote "buy British").

Asda was sold to American Walmart in 1999 (under a Labour Government). It's now British-owned again.